Clash looms on civil liberties

Civil liberties activists are teeing up for a battle with the US government over proposals which will dramatically increase federal officials' ability to perform electronic surveillance, punish terrorists and detain non-citizens.

President George Bush is desperate for the new anti-terrorist measures to be passed by Congress this week but House and Senate judiciary committee scheduling means that it will be at least mid-October before the two chambers even have a starting point to begin negotiating.

Attorney general John Ashcroft has asked the country's lawmakers to approve the anti-terrorism package with a warning: "Talk will not prevent terrorism. We need to have action by the Congress."

Facing bipartisan resistance to proposals like increased wire tapping of phone calls and email, as well as the indefinite detention of immigrants considered national security threats, Mr Ashcroft has argued that such powers are needed to disrupt future terrorist activity.

But some lawmakers have questioned whether some of the provisions infringe the rights and civil liberties of those involved.

"I think everybody knows that we're going to have to make sure that we have some kind of a check-and-balance in there," said Senate judiciary chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

The Bush administration is aware that it will encounter some strong objections and has consequently met congressional leaders to try to work out a compromise.

Since the first attack on the World Trade Centre in 1993, Congress has received a raft of proposals for expanded electronic surveillance, tighter airport security, tougher money laundering laws, a counter-terrorism tsar, increased intelligence sharing and increased monitoring of foreign students.

Some legislation was passed, including measures to increase criminal penalties for suspected acts of terrorism, crack down on immigration violators and substantially increase federal money for investigating terrorism and protecting government buildings and computer networks. But many other proposals fell, were weakened or were never effectively implemented.